10

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

F. Ticconi1, L. Pulvirenti2 and N. Pierdicca2
2

1 Dept. of Information Engineering and Computer Science, University of Trento,

Dept. Information Engineering, Electronics and Telecommunications - Sapienza
University of Rome,
Italy

1. Introduction
Models for scattering of electromagnetic waves from random rough surfaces have been
developed during the last two centuries and the scientific interest in the problem remains
strong also today due to the importance of this phenomenon in diverse areas of science, such
as measurements in optics, geophysics, communications and remote sensing of the Earth.
Such models can be categorised into empirical models, analytical models and a combination
of the two. Though very simple, empirical models are greatly dependent on the
experimental conditions. In spite of their complexity, only theoretical models can yield a
significant understanding of the interaction between the electromagnetic waves and the
Earths surface, although an exact solution of equations governing this interaction may not
always be available and approximate methods have to be used. The semi-empirical models,
which are based on both physical considerations and experimental observations, can be set
between these two kinds of models and can be easily inverted. In this survey, we will focus
on the analytical models and we study more in detail the Kirchhoff Approximation (KA), the
Small Perturbation Method (SPM) and the Integral Equation Method (IEM). The Kirchhoff
Approximation and the Small Perturbation Methods represent early approaches to
scattering which are still much used, whereas the Integral Equation Method represents a
newer approach which has a larger domain of validity. These methods have been found to
be the most common in the literature and many of the other methods are based or have
much in common with these approaches. In section 2, we begin by giving a brief
presentation of the scattering problem and introduce some concepts and results from the
theory of electromagnetic fields which are often used in this context. We will also define the
bistatic scattering coefficient, due to the importance of this type of measurement in many
remote sensing applications, and in particular in the retrieval of soil moisture content. In
section 3, we give a brief presentation on the Kirchhoff Approximation and its close
variants, the Physical Optics (PO) and the Geometrical Optics (GO). In section 4, we give a
brief presentation of the Small Perturbation Method and in section 5 we will present the
Integral Equation Model.

2. Some concepts of the electromagnetic theory and surface parameters

In this section we will give a brief presentation of some concepts on theories of
electromagnetism and statistical characterisation of surfaces, which are often used for

www.intechopen.com

204

Electromagnetic Waves

modelling scattering of electromagnetic waves from random rough surfaces. We will also
define the bistatic scattering coefficient due to the importance of this type of measurement in
many remote sensing applications.
2.1 The Maxwells equations and the wave equation
The basic laws of the electromagnetism are given by the Maxwells equations which, for
linear, homogeneous, isotropic, stationary and not dispersive media, can be written as
(Balanis, 1989):
B
t

(2.1.1)

D
+ Jc + J i
t

(2.1.2)

E =

H =

D =

(2.1.3)

B = 0

(2.1.4)

where E is the electric field vector, D is the electric flux density, H is the magnetic field
vector, B is the magnetic flux density, J is the conduction electric current density, Ji is the
impressed electric current density and is the electric charge density. Maxwells equations
together with the boundary conditions, give a complete description of the field vectors at
any points (including discontinuities) and at any time. In rough surface scattering, the
surface enters in the boundary conditions (see equations (2.2.1)-(2.2.4)), which have to be
also supplied at infinity.
If we consider time-harmonic variation of the electromagnetic field, the instantaneous field
vectors can be related to their complex forms. Thus the Maxwells equations can be written
in a much simpler form:
E = j H

(2.1.5)

H = ( + j ) E + Ji j c E + J i

(2.1.6)

E =

(2.1.7)

H = 0

(2.1.8)

where we assumed the region characterised by permeability , permittivity and

conductivity (lossy medium). To obtain the governing equation for the electric field, we
take the curl of (2.1.5) and then replace (2.1.6). Thus,
E + 2 c E = j Ji

(2.1.9)

which is known as the inhomogeneous Helmholtz vector wave equation. In a free-source

region, E = 0 and (2.1.9) simplifies to:

www.intechopen.com

205

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

2 E + 2 c E = 0

(2.1.10)

In rectangular coordinates, a simple solution to (2.1.10) has the form:

E ( r ) = E 0 e jk r

(2.1.11)

where E0 is a constant complex vector which determines the polarisation characteristics and
the complex propagation vector, k , is defined as:
k = x kx + y ky + z kz

(2.1.12)

kx2 + ky2 + kz2 = 2 c = k 2

(2.1.13)

with the components satisfying

Equation (2.1.11) represents a plane wave and k is the propagation constant. Most analytical
methods for scattering from rough surfaces assume this kind of incident wave, which if
linearly polarised can be rewritten as:
Ei ( r ) = p E0 e jki r = p Ei

(2.1.14)

where k i = k i k , p is the unit polarisation vector and E0 is the amplitude. The associated
magnetic field is given by:
Hi ( r ) = k i E i ( r )

(2.1.15)

where = c is the wave impendence in the medium.

2.2 Integral theorems and other results used in scattering models
We will present some results for electromagnetic fields which are often used as a starting point
in the analytical models for scattering from rough surfaces. These equations are approximated
and simplified using different methods and assumptions in the analytical solutions for
scattering from rough surfaces. We will not show how the equations in this section are
derived, but derivation can be found in the references.
Consider an electromagnetic plane wave incident on a rough surface as shown in figure 2.2.1.

Fig. 2.2.1. Scattering of electromagnetic field on surface separating two media.

www.intechopen.com

206

Electromagnetic Waves

Across any surface interface, the electromagnetic field should satisfy continuity conditions
given by (Balanis, 1989):

n ( E E1 ) = 0

(2.2.1)

n ( H H1 ) = Js

(2.2.2)

n ( E 1E1 ) = s

(2.2.3)

n ( H 1H1 ) = 0

(2.2.4)

where n is the unit normal vector of the rough surface (pointing in the region 0). The
electric surface current density, Js, and the charge surface density, s, at the rough interface
are zero unless the scattering surface (or one of the media) is a perfect conductor.
Using the fact that the fields satisfy the Helmholtz wave equation (2.1.9), it can be shown
that in the region 0, the electromagnetic fields E and H, satisfy Huygens principle and the
radiation boundary condition at infinity and E is given by (Ulaby et al, 1982; Tsang et al,
2000):
E ( r ) = Ei ( r ) +

j G ( r , r ) n H ( r ) G ( r , r ) n E ( r ) ds

S1

(2.2.5)

where G is the dyadic Green function (to the vector Helmholtz equation) which is
represented by:

G ( r , r ) = I + 2 g ( r , r )
k

(2.2.6)

Here I is the unit dyadic and g ( r , r ) is the Green function that satisfies the scalar wave
equation. It assumes the following expression:
jk r r

g ( r , r ) =

e
4 r r

(2.2.7)

In (2.2.5) the first term on the right-hand side represents the field generated by a current
source in an unbounded medium with permittivity and permeability and corresponds to
the incident field. Hence, the electromagnetic field in the region 0 is expressed as the sum of
two contributions: one is given by the incident field Ei ( r ) ; the other contribution is given by
the surface integrals that involve the tangential components Et and Ht of the fields at the
boundary S1 (note that n E = n Et and n H = n Ht ) and represents the scattered field
due to the presence of surface.
The equation (2.2.5) constitutes the mathematical basis of Huygens principle in vector form.
According to this principle, the electromagnetic field in a source-free region ( J = 0 ) is
uniquely determined once its tangential components are assigned on the boundary of the
region. However, since in the region 0, the existence of the impressed current J has been

www.intechopen.com

207

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

assumed, the total electric field can be expressed as the sum of two terms, the incident and
scattering ones:
E ( r ) = Ei ( r ) + Es ( r )

(2.2.8)

Thus, the scattered field can be written as:

Es ( r ) =

j G ( r , r ) n H ( r ) G ( r , r ) n E ( r ) ds

S1

(2.2.9)

If the observation point is in the far field region, the Green function in (2.2.9) can be
simplified and the scattering field can be written as (Ulaby et al,1982; Tsang et al, 2000):

Es ( r ) = Kr ( n E ( r ) ) r ( n H ( r ) ) e j kr ds

(2.2.10)

S1

where K = jke jkr 4r and r is the unit vector pointing in the direction of observation.
The tangential surface fields n E and n H can be also expressed as (Poggio & Miller, 1973):
n E = 2 n Ei -

n H = 2 n Hi +

and
n Et =
n Ht =

2
n e ds
4p

2
n ds
4

2
n t et ds
4

2
n t t ds
4

(2.2.11)

(2.2.12)

(2.2.13)

(2.2.14)

where
e = jk ( n H ) G1 ( n E ) G1 ( n E ) G1
=

jk

( n E) G1 ( n H ) G1 ( n H ) G1

et = jk2 2 ( n H ) G2 ( n E ) G2 ( n E ) G2 ( 1 r )

jk

t = 2 ( n E ) G2 ( n H ) G2 ( n H ) G2 ( 1 r )
2

(2.2.15)
(2.2.16)
(2.2.17)

(2.2.18)

and n , n , n t , n t are the unit normal vectors to the surface and n t = n , n t = n , n E

and n H are the total tangential fields on the rough surface in the medium above the

www.intechopen.com

208

Electromagnetic Waves

separating interface; G1 and G2 are the Greens functions in medium above and below the
interface, respectively, and r = 2 1 , r = 2 1 , 2 = 2 2 and k2 = 2 2 .
2.3 The nature of surface scattering
When an electromagnetic wave impinges the surface boundary between two semi-infinitive
media, the scattering process takes place only at the surface boundary if the two media can
be assumed homogeneous. Under such supposition, the problem at issue is indicated as
surface scattering problem. On the other hand, if the lower medium is inhomogeneous or is a
mixture of materials of different dielectric properties, then a portion of the transmitted wave
scattered backward by the inhomogeneities may cross the boundary surface into the upper
medium. In this case scattering takes place within the volume of the lower medium and it is
referred to as volume scattering. In most cases both the scattering processes are involved,
although only one of them can be dominant. In the case of bare soil, which will be assumed
to be a homogeneous body, surface scattering is the only process taken into consideration.
When the surface boundary separating the two semi-infinitive media is perfectly smooth the
reflection is in the specular direction and is described by the Fresnel reflection laws. On the
other hand, when the surface boundary becomes rough, the incident wave is partly reflected in
the specular direction and partly scattered in all directions. Qualitatively, the relationship
between surface roughness and surface scattering can be illustrated through the example
shown in Figure 2.3.1. For the specular surface, the angular radiation pattern of the reflected
wave is a delta function centred about the specular direction as shown in Figure 2.3.1 (a). For
the slightly rough surface (Figure 2.3.1 (b)), the angular radiation pattern consists of two
components: a reflected component and a scattered component. The reflected component is
again in the specular direction, but the magnitude of its power is smaller than that for smooth
surface. This specular component is often referred to as the coherent scattering component. The
scattered component, also known as the diffuse or incoherent component, consists of power
scattered in all directions, but its magnitude is smaller than that of the coherent component. As
the surface becomes rougher, the coherent component becomes negligible.
Note that the specular component represents also the mean scattered field (in statistical
sense), whereas the diffuse component has a stochastic behaviour, associated to the
randomness of the surface roughness.

(a)

(b)

i s

(c)

Fig. 2.3.1. Relative contributions of coherent and diffuse scattering components for different
surface-roughness conditions: (a) specular, (b) slightly rough, (c) very rough.
2.3.1 Characterisation of soil roughness
A rough surface can be described by a height function = z ( x , y ) . There are basically two
categories of methods which are being used to measure surface roughness. The roughness

www.intechopen.com

209

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

can be carried out by means of various experimental approaches able to reproduce the
surface profile by using contact or laser probes, or it can be estimated using some theory
which relates scattering measurements to surface roughness. In general, the study of
scattering in remote sensing is performed by using random rough surface models, where the
elevation of surface, with respect to some mean surface, is assumed to be an ergodic1, and
hence stationary2, random process with a Gaussian height distribution.
Accordingly, the degree of roughness, or simply the roughness, of a random surface is
characterised in terms of statistical parameters that are measured in units of wavelength. For
this reason, a given surface that may appear very rough to an optical wave, may appear
very smooth to a microwave.
The two fundamental parameters commonly used are the standard deviation of the surface
height variation (or rms height) and the surface correlation length. Such parameters describe
the statistical variation of the random component of surface height relative to a reference
surface, that may be the unperturbed surface of a period pattern, as in the case of a rowtilled soil surface (Figure 2.3.1.1. (a)), or may be the mean plane surface if only random
variations exist (Figure 2.3.1.1 (b)).
Random Surface Component

Random Surface Component

Periodic (Reference) Surface

Mean (Reference) Surface

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2.3.1.1. Two configurations of height variations: (a) random height variations
superimposed to a periodic surface; (b) random variations superimposed to a flat surface.
Let z ( x ) be a representative realisation of the ergodic and stationary process that describes
a generic rough surface in a one-dimensional case. The mean value, which throughout this
chapter will be denoted by angular brackets ... , is equal to the spatial average over a
statistically representative segment of the surface, of dimensions Lx, centred at the origin:
z=

1
Lx

Lx 2

z ( x ) dx = z ( x )

(2.3.1.1)

As it can be noted from the above definition, for a stationary surface the average does not
depend on x. The second moment is:
z2 =

1
Lx

Lx 2
x

z 2 ( x ) dx = z2 ( x )

(2.3.1.2)

1 A process is ergodic when one realisation is representative of all the process, i.e. the statistical averages
over an extracted random variable may be replaced by spatial averages over a single realisation.
2 The stationarity implies that all the statistically properties of a random process are invariant under the
translation of spatial coordinates.

www.intechopen.com

210

Electromagnetic Waves

Using the above expressions, the standard deviation of the surface height, , is therefore
defined as:

= z2 z

()

2 12

= z ( x ) z

2 12

(2.3.1.3)

Such quantities characterise the dispersion of the surface height relative to the reference
plane. Taking into account the stationary properties of the process and considering its mean
value null, the variance, 2 , is coincident with the second moment and does not depend on
x. The autocorrelation function of the height random process z ( x ) is given by:
Rz ( ) =

1
Lx

Lx 2

z ( x ) z ( x + ) dx = z ( x ) z ( x + )

(2.3.1.4)

The normalised autocorrelation function (ACF), better known as the correlation coefficient,
assumes for a process with zero mean value the following expression:

Lx 2

( ) =

z ( x ) z ( x + ) dx

2
Lx 2
x

z ( x ) dx

Rz ( )
Rz ( 0 )

Rz ( )

(2.3.1.5)

It is a measure of the similarity between the height z at point x and at point distant from x.
It has the following properties:

( ) ( 0 ) = 1 ;
lim ( ) = 0 .

The spectral density or power spectrum is defined, for an ergodic random process, as the
Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function Rz ( x ) :
( k ) = R ( x ) e jkx x dx
W
x
z

(2.3.1.6)

where kx is the Fourier transform variable.

However, taking into account the equation (2.3.1.5), it is common practice in characterising
the random surface to define the power spectrum of the normalised autocorrelation
function:
W ( kx ) =

( x ) e jkx x dx

(2.3.1.7)

The Gaussian distribution plays a central role in modelling scattering from random rough
surfaces because it is encountered under a great number of different conditions and because
Gaussian variates have the unique property that the random process is entirely determined
by the height probability distribution and autocorrelation. All higher order correlations can
be expressed in terms of the (second order) autocorrelation function, which simplifies
modelling the surface scattering process. A simple and often used form for the

www.intechopen.com

211

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

autocorrelation is the Gaussian function but other forms have also been studied (Saillard &
Sentenac, 2001).
The roughness spectrum at the nth power of the autocorrelation function, W ( ) , which
often enters into closed form solutions of the scattering problem, is given by the Fourier
transform:
n

n
W ( ) ( kx ) = n ( x ) e jkx x dx

(2.3.1.8)

The consideration of a realistic autocorrelation function is in fact a relevant problem for a

better modelling of the soil scattering. Some often used forms (see for instance (Fung, 1994))
of the autocorrelation function are the Gaussian correlation function, the exponential
correlation function, combinations of the Gaussian and exponential functions and the so
called 1.5-power correlation function. For all of these, the roughness spectrum at the nth
power can be evaluated analytically (see (Fung, 1994)). For instance, for an isotropically
rough surface, the normalised Gaussian autocorrelation in a single dimension assumes the
following expression:
x2
2

( x ) = exp

(2.3.1.9)

where l is the correlation length. Such surface parameter is defined as the displacement x for
which ( x ) is equal to 1 e

(l) = 1 e

(2.3.1.10)

The correlation length of a surface provides a reference for estimating the statistical
independence of two points on the surface; if the two points are separated by a horizontal
distance greater than l, then their heights may be considered to be (approximately)
statistically independent of one another. In the extreme case of a perfectly smooth (specular)
surface, every point on the surface is correlated with every other point with a correlation
coefficient of unity. Hence, l = in this case.
Referring to equation (2.3.1.9), the nth power roughness spectrum is equal to:
W ( n ) ( kx ) n ( x )e jkx x dx =l

kx 2 l 2
4n

(2.3.1.11)

Beside the height random function z ( x ) , the slope function is another important
characterisation of the rough surface. It is defined as:
Zx = lim

x 0

z ( x + x ) z ( x )

(2.3.1.12)

Considering the stationary random process z ( x ) as normally distributed with zero mean
and variance 2 , being Zx the first derivative, its distribution is again normal with zero
mean and variance related to the second derivative of the autocorrelation function of z ( x )
at the origin (Beckman & Spizzichino, 1963):

www.intechopen.com

212

Electromagnetic Waves

s2 = Zx2 = 2 ( 0 )

(2.3.1.13)

The rms slope is subsequently indicated as m:

m = 2 ( 0 )

1 2

(2.3.1.14)

When the normalised autocorrelation function is Gaussian (equation (2.3.1.9)), the rms slope
is equal to:
m= 2

(2.3.1.15)

2.4 Bistatic scattering coefficient

A quantity often used in models and measurements of scattering in the microwave region is
the bistatic scattering coefficient qo, p ( i ,i , s ,s ) . It describes the targets scattering properties
at a given frequency, polarisation, incidence and observing directions, being independent on
the specific measurement system used. It is possible to define qo, p directly in terms of the
incident and scattering field Epi and Eqs as follows (Ulaby et al, 1982):

qo, p

(i ,i ,s ,s ) =

4R 2 Eps
A0 Eqi

(2.4.1)

where the ensemble average must be considered in case the scattered field is the fluctuating
zero mean component (i.e., the diffuse or incoherent component mentioned before)
generated by a natural target or random rough surface. Such equation shows qo, p as the
ratio of the total power scattered by an equivalent isotropic scatterer in direction ( s ,s ) to
the product of the incident power density in direction ( i ,i ) and the illuminated area.
The backscattering coefficient qo, p ( i ) is a special case of qo, p ( i ,i , s ,s ) ; it is defined for
s = i and s = i (Figure 2.4.1), which corresponds to the incident and scattered
direction being the same except for a reversal in sense.

Fig. 2.4.1. Geometry of the scattering problem.

www.intechopen.com

213

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

3. The Kirchhoff approximation

In this section we shall consider the Kirchhoff (also sometimes referred to as the tangent
plane approximation) approach to describe the scattering from rough surfaces, which was
one of the first methods applied. We will consider surfaces with random surface profiles (i.e.
not period surfaces) and within the context of the vector theory we will discuss the
Kirchhoff Approximation. We will consider here the case of scattering from 2-dimensional
dielectric surfaces. We will present results for the case of a surface which can be
characterised as a Gaussian random process. We will also mention some extensions of the
Kirchhoff approximation and will give references to further reading about the Kirchhoff
approach. The reference list is by no means complete, since the literature on the Kirchhoff
approximation is vast. A good representation of the Kirchhoff method can be found for
instance in (Tsang et al, 2000, Tsang & Kong, 2001, Ulaby et al, 1982).
3.1 Formulation of the scattering problem
The geometry of the scattering problem we consider is shown in figure 2.4.1. We consider a
monochromatic, linearly polarised incident plane wave with electric and magnetic field
given by the equations (2.1.14) and (2.1.15), respectively.
s
It can be shown, similarly to equation (2.2.10), that the far zone scattering field, Eqp
, can be
written in terms of the tangential surface fields in the medium above the separating surface
as (Stratton-Chu integral) (Ulaby et al, 1982):
j k r
s
= K q k s n E p + n H p e ( s ) ds
Eqp

) (

)}

(3.1.1)

where
k s = kk s = k ( sin s cos s x + sin s sin s y + coss z ) = ksx x + ksy y + ksz z

(3.1.2)

What needs to be calculated are the tangential surface fields in equation (3.1.1). In equations
(2.2.11) - (2.2.12) and (2.2.15) - (2.2.16) we presented integral equations for the tangential
surface fields in the medium above the scattering dielectric surface. It should be noted that
these expressions are exact. However, they cannot in general be solved analytically and
therefore approximations have to be introduced. Below we will show that by introducing an
approximation called the tangent plane approximation (or the Kirchhoff approximation), closed
analytical solutions can be obtained to the scattering problem.
3.2 The tangent plane approximation and the Kirchhoff fields
In the Kirchhoff approach, the total fields at any point of the surface (i.e., the incident plus
the scattered one, to be considered inside the integral (3.1.1)) are approximated by the fields
that would be present on an infinitely extended tangent plane at that particular point on the
surface. The reflection is therefore considered to be locally specular. It is due to this fact that
the Kirchhoff approximation is also referred to as the tangent plane approximation. The
Kirchhoff approach requires to be valid that every point on the surface has a large radius of
curvature relative to the wavelength of the incident field.
Thus, under the tangent-plane approximation, the total field at a point on the surface is
assumed equal to the incident field plus the field reflected by an infinite plane tangent to the
point. Hence, the tangential surface fields are (Ulaby et al, 1982):

www.intechopen.com

214

Electromagnetic Waves

n E = ( n E ) k = n Ei + Er

n H = ( n H ) k = n Hi + Hr

(3.2.1)

(3.2.2)

Here the subscript k stands for the Kirchhoff approximation.

The way to proceed from here, in most presentations of the Kirchhoff method, consists in
expressing the tangential fields under the Kirchhoff approximation in terms of the incident
electric field components and the local Fresnel reflection coefficients, which depend on the
local angles of incidence. This results in the following expressions:
n E = ( 1 + Rh ) p t

( ) ( n t ) ( 1 Rv ) ( n k i ) ( p d ) t E0 e jk k r

( n H ) = ( 1 Rh ) n k i

) ( p t ) t + ( 1 + R ) ( p d ) ( n t ) E e
0

jk k i r

(3.2.3)
(3.2.4)

where the unit vectors t , d , k i define the local reference coordinate system (see (Fung,
1994)) and n is the unit normal vector to the interface in the above medium. Rv and Rh are
the Fresnel reflection coefficients for vertical and horizontal polarisation respectively.
Upon substituting (3.2.3) and (3.2.4) in (3.1.1), the scattered field is:
j k k r
s
Eqp
= K q k s n E p + n H p e ( s i ) ds

) (

)}

(3.2.5)

where the phase factor, exp jkk i r , of the incident wave has been pointed out from the
equations (3.2.3) and (3.2.4). Such equation represents the scattered field formulated under
the tangent-plane, or Kirchhoff approximation. As it stands the expression is a complicated
function of the surface function and its partial derivatives. No analytic solution has been
obtained from (3.2.5) without additional simplifying assumptions. Here we will show the
results presented in (Ulaby et al, 1982): for surface with large (with respect to wavelength)
standard deviation of surface heights, for which the stationary-phase approximation
(Geometric Optics, GO) will be used, and for surfaces with small slopes and a medium or
small standard deviation of surface heights, for which a scalar approximation (Physical
Optics, PO) will be used.
3.2.1 The scattered field under the stationary-phase approximation (Geometric Optic,
GO)
Under the stationary-phase approximation the local tangent plane on a surface point can be
considered infinitely wide and, as consequence, the angular re-irradiation pattern
originating from that specific point can be represented by a delta function centred in the
specular direction. This means that scattering can occur only along directions for which
there are specular points on the surface. Hence local diffraction effects are excluded. The
approximating relations are obtained from the phase Q of (3.2.5), that is:

Q = k k s k i r q r = qx x + q y y + q z z

www.intechopen.com

(3.2.1.1)

215

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

where
k s = x sin s cos s + y sin s sin s + z cos s

(3.2.1.2)

k i = x sin i cos i + y sin i sin i z cos i

(3.2.1.3)

qx = k ( sin s cos s sin i cos i )

(3.2.1.4)

q y = k ( sin s sin s sin i sin i )

(3.2.1.5)

q z = k ( cos s + cos i )

(3.2.1.6)

The phase Q is said to be stationary at a point if its rate of change is zero at the point, that is:
z
Q
= 0 = qx + q z
x
x

z
Q
= 0 = qy + qz
y
y

Hence, the partial derivatives of the surface slopes can be replaced by the components of the
phase as:
Zx =

z
q
= x
x
qz

(3.2.1.7)

Zy =

qy
z
=
qz
y

(3.2.1.8)

Since, the local unit vector n is a function of the surface derivatives:

n =

Zx x Zy y + z
1 + Zx2 + Zy2

(3.1.1.9)

the use of (3.2.1.7) and (3.2.1.8) makes n E and n H independent on the integration
variables. Thus, the expression for Es can be rewritten as:
Es = K k s ( n E ) k s ( n H ) I 1

(3.2.1.10)

where
I1 = e

jk k s k i r

ds

(3.2.1.11)

The scattering field corresponding to transmission of p polarisation and reception of q

polarisation can be written as (Ulaby et al, 1982):

www.intechopen.com

216

Electromagnetic Waves
s
Eqp
= q Es K I 1E0Uqp

(3.2.1.12)

where
U qp =

1
q k s ( n E ) k s ( n H )

E0

(3.2.1.13)

To compute the scattering coefficient, defined in (2.4.1), for different polarisation states, it is
2

necessary to calculate the ensemble average of I 1 :

I1

= e

jk k s k i ( r r )

dsds

(3.2.1.14)

By assuming the surface roughness as a stationary and isotropic Gaussian random process,
with zero mean, variance 2 , and correlation coefficient , and in the assumption that the

( qz )2

standard deviation of surface heights is large (that is,

large) the integral can be

solved. The result is (Ulaby et al, 1982):

I1

q x2 + q y2
2 A0 q 2

exp

4 2
2 2
q z ( 0 )
2 q z ( 0 )

(3.2.1.15)

where the illuminated area A0 is ( 2L ) , ( 0 ) is the second derivatives of evaluated at the

origin and 2 ( 0 ) corresponds to the mean-squared slope of the surface (Ulaby et al,
1982) (Section 2.3.1).
Upon substituting (3.2.1.15) into the product in the scattered-field expression, it follows:
s s
Eqp
Eqp = KE0U qp

I1

(3.2.1.16)

Substituting (3.2.1.16) in the definition of the scattering coefficient given by equation (2.4.1),
it assumes the following expression:

o
qp

kq U 2

qp

q x2 + q y2
exp
= 4 2
2 2
2q z ( 0 )
2 q z ( 0 )

(3.2.1.17)

o
, the effects of shadowing and multiple scattering have been ignored.
In the derivation of qp

It is important to underline that (3.2.1.17) is valid only for surface with sufficiently large
standard deviation of surface heights. Under such assumption, that is

( qz )2

large, the

scattering is purely incoherent. As ( q z ) decreases, some scattered energy begins to appear

in the coherent component. To examine such situation, a different approximation to the
2

tangential fields is needed to permit small ( q z ) . This is discussed in the next section.

www.intechopen.com

217

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

3.2.2 The scattered field under the scalar approximation (Physical Optics, PO)
A different Kirchhoff approach is the Physical Optics solution to (3.1.1). The Physical Optics
approach involves the integration of the Kirchhoff scattered field over the entire rough
surface, not just the portions of surface which contribute specularly to the scattered
direction. Unlike the Geometric Optics solution, the Physical Optics solution predicts a
coherent component.
The power in the incoherent reflected field can be found by expanding the Stratton-Chu
equation in a Taylor series in surface slope distribution. In (Ulaby et al, 1982) the Physical
Optics solution is called scalar approximation because slopes are ignored in the surface
coordinate system, leading to a decoupling of polarisation in the vector scattering equations.
Accordingly, the basic scattered-field expression can be rewritten in the form:
s
= KE0 U qp exp jk k s k i r ds
Eqp

s s
where U qp are given in (Ulaby et al, 1982). To find Eqp
Eqp
computation, the following integral needs to be computed:

(3.2.2.1)
for the scattering-coefficient

I = U qp U qp exp jk k s k i ( r r ) dsds

(3.2.2.2)

Since all U qp are expressed in a Taylor series in surface slope distribution, Zx and Zy:

U qp = a0 + a1Zx + a2 Zy

(3.2.2.3)

where ai are polarisation-dependent coefficients, the product U qp U qp can be written up to

the first order in slope as:

U qp U qp a0 a0 + a0 a1Zx + a0 a1Zx + a0 a2 Zy + a0 a2 Zy

(3.2.2.4)

Since ( q z ) is no longer required to be large and assuming the size of the illuminated area
equal to 2 L 2L , the ensemble average of the first term in (3.2.2.4) can be expressed as (for
more details see (Ulaby et al, 1982))
2

I 0 = a0 e qz

n=0

2 n

(q )
2
z

n!

2L 2L
2L

2L

n ( 2L u )( 2 L v ) e

jqx u + jq y v

dudv

(3.2.2.5)

where the n = 0 term corresponds to coherent scattering. It can be shown that this coherentscattering coefficient can be expressed as:
2

( )

o c
qp
= k 2 a0 ( qx ) q y e q z

(3.2.2.6)

which shows that coherent scattering is important only when qz is small. The rest of the
series in (3.2.2.5) represents incoherent scattering. The integral I0 for n 1 can be rewritten
2

in the following manner pointing out the illuminated area A0 = ( 2L ) :

www.intechopen.com

218

Electromagnetic Waves

2 q z2 2

I 0 = a0 e

A0

2 n

(q )
2
z

n!

n=1

n e

jqx u + jq y v

dudv

(3.2.2.7)

For an isotropically rough surface with correlation length l and Gaussian normalised
autocorrelation function, = exp 2 l 2 , the integral (3.2.2.7) can be shown to be:

n 2 l 2 + jqx u + jq y v

dudv =

l 2
n

(q

2
2
x + qy

)l

4n

(3.1.2.8)

It is clear that different solutions may be obtained for the integral if the normalised surface
autocorrelation function is assumed to take some other functional forms. Upon substituting
s s
Eqp , the scattering coefficient for the incoherent
(3.2.2.7) and (3.2.2.8) into the factor Eqp

part of the a0

term has the following expression:

o inc
qp

2 q 2 2
z

= ( a0 kl 2 ) e

2 n

(q )
2
z

n!n

n=1

(q

2
x

+ q y2 l 2
4n

(3.2.2.9)

o inc
If the normalised surface autocorrelation is not known, qp
can be written as:

o inc
qp

k 2 a0

q z2 2

2 n

(q )

n=1

2
z

n!

ne

jqx u + jq y v

dudv

(3.2.2.10)

An additional contribution to the total scattering coefficient comes from the slope terms in
s s
Eqp
the
(3.2.2.4). It can be computed taking into account in the ensemble average Eqp
integrals of the slope terms in the x- and y-direction. The results of such integrals for a
Gaussian normalised autocorrelation function are reported in (Ulaby et al, 1982). Also the
expressions of the polarisation-dependent coefficients ai can be found in the same reference.
However, the expressions of the coefficient a0 for each polarisation are reported below for
the two particular cases of backscattering and scattering in the specular direction.
In the backscattering:
HH polarisation:
a0 = 2 Rh ( i ) cosi
VH polarisation:

a0 = 0

VV polarisation:

a0 = 2 Rv ( i ) cos i

HV polarisation:

a0 = 0

Conversely, in the specular direction case:

HH polarisation:
a0 = 2 Rh ( i ) cos i
VH polarisation:

a0 = 0

VV polarisation:

a0 = 2 Rv ( i ) cosi

HV polarisation:

a0 = 0

www.intechopen.com

219

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

The quantity qx,y,z are defined in the previous section.

3.3 On the range of validity of the Kirchhoff method and shadowing effects
The basic assumption of the Kirchhoff method is that plane-boundary reflection occurs at
every point on the surface. Thus, when statistical surfaces are considered, their horizontalscale roughness, the correlation length l, must be larger than the electromagnetic
wavelength, while their vertical-scale roughness, the standard deviation of surface
heights, must be small enough so that the average radius of curvature is larger than the
electromagnetic wavelength. Mathematically, for stationary isotropic Gaussian surface the
above-stated restriction are (Ulaby et al, 1982):

kl > 6

<

(3.3.1)

l2
2.76

(3.3.2)

where k is the wave number and is the electromagnetic wavelength. Note that the surface
standard deviation should be small relative to the correlation length, but it can be
comparable to or even larger than the electromagnetic wavelength. This means that large
standard deviations can be tolerated if the correlation length is large enough to preserve an
acceptable average radius of curvature. The conditions reported above are for the Kirchhoff
approximation. The scattering models described in section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 require additional
approximations reported in the following table:

Validity limits of Kirchhoff Approximation (KA)

(Gaussian surface)
l2 > 2.76
Stationary Phase Aproximation (GO)
k > 2

and

kl > 6
Scalar Approximation (PO)
k < 1 and rmsslope < 0.25

Table 3.3.1. Validity of GO and PO for stationary isotropic Gaussian surfaces with standard
deviation and correlation length l.
3.4 Some concluding remarks on the Kirchhoff method
As was mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Kirchhoff method does neither in itself
account for shadowing and nor does it (in the form described here) account for multiple
scattering on the surface. Due to the lack of these two effects energy conservation is not
satisfied. However, in (Ulaby et al, 1982) this conservation is demonstrating with the
inclusion of these two effects.
In the literature, the surface height distribution is in most cases assumed to be Gaussian. The
reason for this is, as mentioned previously, that the surface roughness rms height and the
autocorrelation function entirely determine the random process, and therefore the bistatic
scattering coefficient can be expressed in terms of these two quantities.
The Kirchhoff method has been applied to surfaces described by fractal geometry. As an
example we can mention that in (Franceschetti et al, 1999) a fractional Brownian motion model
was used for modelling the scattering from natural rough surface. In combination with the
Kirchhoff method an analytical solution for the bistatic scattering coefficient was obtained.

www.intechopen.com

220

Electromagnetic Waves

4. The small perturbation method

The Small Perturbation Method (SPM) belongs to a large family of perturbation expansion
solutions to the wave equation. The approach is based on formulating the scattering as a
partial differential equation boundary value problem. The basic idea is to find a solution in
terms of plane waves that matches the surface boundary conditions, which state that the
tangential component of the field must be continuous across the boundary. The surface
fields are expanded in a perturbation series with respect to surface height, e.g.,
E = E0 + E 1 + ... . In the expansion E 0 would be the surface field if the surface was flat. The
philosophy behind this approach is that small effective surface currents on a mean surface
replace the role of a small-scale roughness. So this method applies to surfaces with small
surface height variations and small surface slopes compared with the wavelength but
independently of the radius of curvature of the surface. Therefore, the surface needs no
longer to be approximated by planes. The small-scale roughness is expanded in a Fourier
series and the contribution to the field is therefore analysed in terms of different wavelength
components.
Here we will report only the expressions of the bistatic scattering coefficient. A more
detailed description of their computation process can be found in (Ulaby et al, 1982).
4.1 A small presentation of the SPM
The zero order solution of the SPM is the same as for a plane interface, while the first order
solution gives the incoherent scattered field due to single scattering. For the latter case, the
bistatic scattering coefficient for either a horizontally or vertically polarised incident wave is
(Ulaby et al, 1982):
2

o
qp
= 8 k 2 cos i cos s qp W kx + k sin i , ky

(4.1.1)

where
kx = k sin s cos s

ky = k sin s sin s

W kx , k y =

1
2

jk u jk v
dudv
( u, v ) e

and ( u , v ) are, respectively, the variance of surface heights and the surface correlation
coefficient; qp are coefficients that depend on polarisation, incidence and scattering angle,
and on complex relative dielectric constant c of the homogeneous medium below the
interface. The detailed expressions of qp are reported in (Ulaby et al, 1982).
4.2 Some remarks on the region of validity of the SPM
The Small Perturbation Method is applied to surfaces with a surface height standard
deviation much less than the incident wavelength (5 percent or less) and an average surface
slope comparable to or less than the surface standard deviation times the wave number. For
a surface with Gaussian correlation function, such two conditions can be expressed

www.intechopen.com

221

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

analytically as follows, but they should be viewed only as a guideline for applying the SPM
scattering model:

k < 0.3
2 l < 0.3
The SPM has been compared to more accurate numerical simulations in (Thorsos & Jackson,
1989; 1991) for one-dimensional rough surfaces with a Gaussian roughness spectrum. Under
these conditions the authors show that the first-order SPM gives accurate results for k << 1
and kl 1 . The results also show that for k << 1 and kl > 6, the sum of the first three orders
of the SPM is required to obtain accurate results.
It has been argued that the SPM does account for multiple scattering up to the order of the
perturbative expansion. This means that the first order perturbative solution does not
account for multiple scattering but that some multiple scattering effects can be observed in
the higher order solutions.

Validity limits of Small Perturbation Method (SPM)

(Gaussian surface)
k < 0.3

and

rmsslope < 0.3

Table 4.2.1. Validity of SPM for stationary isotropic Gaussian surfaces with standard
deviation and root mean square slope rmsslope.

5. The Integral Equation Method (IEM)

A relatively new method for calculating scattering of electromagnetic waves from rough
surfaces is the Integral Equation Method (IEM). The IEM has been used extensively in the
microwave region in recent years and it has proved to provide good predictions for a wide
range of surface profiles. The method can be viewed as an extension of the Kirchhoff
method and the Small Perturbation Method since it has been shown to reproduce results of
these two methods in appropriate limits. The IEM is a relatively complicated method in its
general form (including multiple scattering) and it is beyond the scope of the present
overview to give a full presentation of the method. A more detailed presentation of the IEM
can be found in (Fung, 1994).
5.1 On the formulation of the IEM
The starting point of the IEM is the Stratton-Chu integral for the scattered field, equation
(3.1.1). The tangential surface fields which enter the Stratton-Chu integral are given in
equations (2.2.11) - (2.2.12) and (2.2.15) - (2.2.16). In the Kirchhoff approach, the tangential
fields are approximated using the tangent plane approximation, replacing the complete
tangential surface fields with the Kirchhoff tangential surface fields of equations (3.2.1) and
(3.2.2). It is clear that the Kirchhoff tangential surface fields cannot provide alone a good
estimate of the surface fields since the integral form in equations (2.2.11) - (2.2.12) are not
accounted for in the Kirchhoff approach. In the IEM, a complementary term is included in
equations (3.2.1) and (3.2.2) to correct for this:

www.intechopen.com

222

Electromagnetic Waves

n E = ( n E ) k + ( n E )c

(5.1.1)

n H = ( n H ) k + ( n H )c

(5.1.2)

In these equations, the first terms on the right hand side are the tangential fields under
Kirchhoff approximation and the complementary fields are given by:

( n E ) c = n ( Ei Er )
( n H ) c = n ( Hi Hr ) +

2
n eds
4

(5.1.3)

2
n ds
4

(5.1.4)

Er and Hr being the reflected electric and magnetic fields propagating along the reflected
direction. To use (5.1.1) and (5.1.2) for estimating the tangential field, both the Kirchhoff
field and the complementary field need to be expressed in terms of the incident field
components and the surface reflectivity properties. Using the local coordinate system
defined by the unit vectors t , d , k (for their expressions refer to (Fung, 1994)), the
i

incident electric and magnetic field can be expressed into locally horizontally and vertically
polarised components. Accordingly, after some manipulations (see (Fung, 1994) for more
details), the Kirchhoff and complementary tangential fields can be rewritten as:

( n E )k = n ( 1 + Rh ) ( p t ) t + ( 1 Rv ) ( p d ) d Ei

(5.1.5)

( n H ) k = n ( 1 Rh ) ( p t ) d + ( 1 + Rv ) p d t Ei

(5.1.6)

1
n t n t n ( 1 + Rh ) e + ( 1 Rh ) et ds
4
1

t t n ( 1 Rv ) e + ( 1 + Rv ) et ds
4

( n E ) c =

){

1
n t n t n ( 1 + Rv ) + ( 1 Rv ) t ds
4
1
+
t t n ( 1 Rh ) + ( 1 + Rh ) t ds
4

( n H ) c =

){

(5.1.7)

(5.1.8)

It can be noted that, while (5.1.5) and (5.1.6) are expressed in terms of known quantities, that
is the incident electric or magnetic fields, the local Fresnel reflection coefficient and the local
incident angle, (5.1.7) and (5.1.8) are integral equations. In order to obtain estimates of (5.1.7)
and (5.1.8), IEM substitutes the unknown expressions of the tangential fields in the righthand side of (5.1.7) and (5.1.8), that is the ( n E ) and ( n H ) terms which appear in e ,
et , and t , with the Kirchhoff tangential fields, ( n E ) k and ( n H ) k , respectively.

This is the fundamental approximation adopted by IEM model. However, even with this
simplification the obtained integral expressions remain too complex for practical use.

www.intechopen.com

223

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

Much simpler approximate expressions of the tangential Kirchhoff and complementary

fields can be obtained differentiating them for each linear incident and scattered
polarisation. The resulting approximated equations (electric and magnetic surface field
equations for horizontal, vertical and cross polarisation) can be found in (Fung, 1994).
Then, the simplified tangential surface fields can be inserted in the Stratton-Chu integral.
The far field scattered from the rough surface can be expressed as a combination of the
Kirchhoff and the complementary term:
s
k
c
Eqp
= Eqp
+ Eqp

where

(5.1.9)

j k k r
k
Eqp
= CE0 f qp e ( s i ) dxdy

and
c
=
Eqp

(5.1.10)

CE
C jk s r
ju x x + jv y y ) + jk s r jk i r
F e
dxdy = 20 Fqp e ( ) (
dxdydudvdxdy
2 qp
8
8

(5.1.11)

The quantities fqp and Fqp , respectively the Kirchhoff and complementary field coefficients,
that appear in the above equations are defined as follows:
f qp = q k s n E p

)k + q ( n Hp )k D1

Fqp = 8 2 q k s n E p

Ei

(5.1.12)

)c + q ( n Hp )c D1

(5.1.13)

where D1 = 1 + Zx2 + Zy2 and Ei is the complex amplitude of the incident electric field.
In general, both fqp and Fqp are dimensionless, complicated expressions and depended on
spatial variables. Therefore several approximations are made to make these functions
independent of spatial variables (Fung, 1994).
In particular, the fqp coefficients depend on the Fresnel reflection coefficients, and hence on
the local angle, and on the slope terms, Zx and Zy. The first dependency is removed by
approximating the local incidence angle in the Fresnel reflection coefficients by the incident
angle, i, for surface with small scale roughness and by the specular angle, sp, cos = n k ,
sp

for surface with large scale roughness. The rule that defines the bound between the two
regions is reported here assuming a Gaussian autocorrelation function:
Rv , h ( i ) k 2 l < 1.2 r
Rv , h =
kl > 5
Rv , h ( spec )

(5.1.14)

In order to remove the dependence on the slope terms, the integral (5.1.10) is solved by parts
and the edge terms were discarded.
To obtain the expressions of the complementary coefficients Fqp , the computation is rather
lengthy and complicated. When the equations (2.2.15) - (2.2.18) are substituted in the

www.intechopen.com

224

Electromagnetic Waves

approximated expressions of tangential complementary fields, the spectral representations

of Greens function and of its gradient are introduced, assuming however the same Greens
functions for both the medium:
G=

1 j ju( x x ) + jv ( y y ) jq z z
e
dudv
2 q

G =

(5.1.15)

1 g ju( x x ) + jv( y y ) jq z z
e
dudv
2 q

(5.1.16)

g = ux + vy qz and q = k 2 u2 v 2 are the propagation vector and its z-component of the

generic plane wave that appears in the plane waves expansion of the field, whereas z and z
are the random variables representing the surface heights at different locations on the
random surface. In (Fung, 1994), the z z terms and the term with the are dropped in
the equations (5.1.15) and (5.1.16) in order to simplify the calculation. However, in an
improved version of the IEM (see (Chen et al, 2000)) these terms are kept in the analysis. In
addition, as was the case for the Kirchhoff coefficients, fqp, the dependence through the slope
terms is removed by integrating by parts and discarding the edge terms. Instead, as regard
the Fresnel reflection coefficients, the local angle is always replaced by incident angle (Fung,
1994; Wu et al, 2001).
Moreover, it is important to underline that the tangential and normal field components that
appear in the expressions of the Fqp coefficients through equations (2.2.15) - (2.2.18) can be
approximated by the tangential Kirchhoff fields. The complimentary field coefficients Fqp
that appear in the right term of the equation (5.1.11) are obtained from the definition of the
Fqp after the Greens function and its gradient are replaced by the simplified spectral
representation, above mentioned, and after the phase factor of the Green function and u, v,
x, y integrations are factored out. The expressions of such coefficients together with the
expressions of the Kirchhoff ones are reported in (Brogioni et al, 2010).
Once the field coefficients, fqp and Fqp, are made independent of spatial variables, it is
possible to provide the expression of the incoherent scattered power:
s
Eqp

s
Eqp

s s *
s
= Eqp
Eqp Eqp

s
Eqp

k k *
k
= Eqp
Eqp Eqp

k
Eqp

c k *
c
Eqp Eqp
+ 2 Re Eqp

=
+

k *
c c *
c
Eqp
+ Eqp Eqp Eqp

(5.1.17)
c
Eqp

and from this the bistatic scattering coefficient:

o
k
kc
c
qp
= qp
+ qp
+ qp

(5.1.18)

From the above expression it follows that the scattering coefficient is given by the sum of
three terms: the Kirchhoff, the complementary and the cross term. The first is originated by
Kirchhoff fields, the second by the interaction between Kirchhoff and complementary fields,
whereas the last is due only to complementary fields.

www.intechopen.com

225

Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces

To carry out the average operation an assumption about the type of surface height
distribution is necessary. In order to simplify the calculation of the incoherent power terms
the rough surface is assumed characterised by a Gaussian height distribution. Accordingly,
the terms in (5.1.18) assume the following expressions, reported in (Fung, 1994):

k
qp
=

2 2 k + k 2
k2
f qp e ( sz z )
4
(5.1.19)
2 ( k + k )2 ( , ) 1 exp j ( k k ) + j k k d d
exp
sz
z
sx
x
sy
y

kc
qp
=

k2
Re
16 3

{ (F

qp f qp

) exp ( k

exp

2
sz

+ kz2 + kz ksz

kz ksz ( , ) exp 2 ksz ( ksz + kz ) ( , ) +

kz ( ksz + kz ) ( , ) 1 exp jksz + jksy + j ( ) + ju ( )

exp jkx jky d d d d dudv

c
qp
=

k
16

2.5

{ (F

qp Fqp

) exp ( k
2

2
sz

(5.1.20)

+ kz2

2
( , )
exp 2 kz ksz ( + , + ) exp 2 ksz

exp kz ( , ) + kz ksz ( + , + ) + ( , ) 1 (5.1.21)

exp j ( ksx + u ) + ksy + v ( kx + u ) ky + v

} )

exp j ( u u ) + ( v v ) d d d d d d du dv du dv

The above expressions consist of multiple integrals which are too complex and hence not
practical to use. In order to evaluate these integrals, the model is approximated in two
different forms depending upon whether the surface height is moderate or large in terms of
the incident wavelength (k). The first case is referred to as low frequency approximation,
whilst the other is referred to as high frequency approximation. An indicative threshold
k
kc
c
value of k < 2 is reported in (Fung, 1994). The detailed expressions of qp
, qp
, qp
valid

separately when k < 2 and for large k are given in (Fung, 1994) and are not reported here.
For both the approximations, in the expression of the bistatic scattering coefficient two types
of terms can be distinguished: one representing single-scattering and the other representing
multiple-scattering. The latter may be viewed as a correction to the single term for both the
high- and the low-frequency regions. This division is important to identify weather single or
multiple scattering is significant for applications. For completeness we report here the total
single scattering coefficient obtained by selecting the single scattering contributions in the
k
kc
c
, qp
, qp
valid when k < 2 (for the detailed explanation refer to (Fung,
expressions of qp

1994)):

www.intechopen.com

226

Electromagnetic Waves
( ksz )n Fqp ( kx , ky ) + ( kz )n Fqp ( ksx , ksy )
2
k 2 2 ( kz2 + ksz2 ) 2 n
( k z + ksz )n f qp e kz ksz +
e
W ( n ) ( ksx kx , ksy ky )

2
2
n =1 n !
2

oqp =

(5.1.22)

6. Conclusions
We have presented the results from a literature search of models for scattering of
electromagnetic waves from random rough surfaces. In particular we have focused on the
calculation of the bistatic scattering coefficient in three different classes of methods: the
Kirchhoff Approximation, the Method of Small Perturbation and the Integral Equation Method. Of
these, the first two, are amongst the early approaches which however are still much used.
The latter is an example of more recent approaches which have been developed as an
attempt to extend the validity of the former methods.

7. References
Balanis C. A. (1989). Advanced Engineering Electromagnetism, John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Beckman P., Spizzichino A. (1963). The Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves from Rough
Surfaces, Pergamon press, Oxford [etc.].
Brogioni M., Macelloni G., Paloscia S., Pampaloni P., Pettinato S., Pierdicca N, Ticconi F.
(2010). Sensitivity of Bistatic Scattering to Soil Moisture and Surface Roughness of
Bare Soils, International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 31, no. 15, pp. 4227-4255.
Chen K.S., Wu T.D., Tsay M.K., Fung A.K. (2000). A Note on the Multiple Scattering in an
IEM Model, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 38, no. 1, pp.
249-256.
Franceschetti G., Iodice A., Migliaccio M., Riccio D. (1999), Scattering from Natural Rough
Surfaces Modeled by Fractional Brownian Motion Two Dimensional Processes,
Proc. SPIE, Remote Sensing of the Ocean and Sea Ice, vol. 4172, pp. 169-176.
Fung A. K. (1994). Microwave Scattering and Emission Models and Their Application, Boston,
MA, Arthech House.
Poggio A. J., Miller E. K. (1973). Integral Equation solution of Three Dimensional Scattering
Problems, Computed Techniques for Electromagnetics, Pergamon, New York.
Saillard M., Sentenac A. (2001). Rigorous Solutions for Electromagnetic Scattering from
Rough Surfaces, Waves in Random Media, vol. 11, pp. 103-137.
Tsang L., Kong J. A., Ding K.-H. (2000). Electromagnetic Waves, theories and applications, Jon
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Tsang L., Kong J. A. (2001). Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves, Advanced Topics, Jon Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Thorsos E. I., Jackson D. (1989). The Validity of the Perturbation Approximation for Rough
Surface Scattering using a Gaussian Roughness Spectrum, Journal Acoust. Soc. Am.,
vol. 86 (1), pp. 261-277.
Thorsos E. I., Jackson D. (1991). Studies of Scattering Theory using Numerical Methods,
Waves in Random Media, vol. 3, pp. 165-190.
Ulaby F. T., Moore R. K., Fung A. K. (1982). Microwave remote sensing: active and passive,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, London [etc.].
Wu T-D., Chen K. S., Shi J., Fung A. K. (2001). A Transition Model for the Reflection
Coefficient in Surface Scattering, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 2040-2050.

www.intechopen.com

Electromagnetic Waves

Edited by Prof. Vitaliy Zhurbenko

ISBN 978-953-307-304-0
Hard cover, 510 pages
Publisher InTech

Published online 21, June, 2011

Published in print edition June, 2011

This book is dedicated to various aspects of electromagnetic wave theory and its applications in science and
technology. The covered topics include the fundamental physics of electromagnetic waves, theory of
electromagnetic wave propagation and scattering, methods of computational analysis, material
characterization, electromagnetic properties of plasma, analysis and applications of periodic structures and
waveguide components, and finally, the biological effects and medical applications of electromagnetic fields.

How to reference

In order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following:
F. Ticconi, L. Pulvirenti and N. Pierdicca (2011). Models for Scattering from Rough Surfaces, Electromagnetic
Waves, Prof. Vitaliy Zhurbenko (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-304-0, InTech, Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/electromagnetic-waves/models-for-scattering-from-rough-surfaces

InTech Europe

University Campus STeP Ri

Slavka Krautzeka 83/A
51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Phone: +385 (51) 770 447
Fax: +385 (51) 686 166
www.intechopen.com

InTech China

Unit 405, Office Block, Hotel Equatorial Shanghai

No.65, Yan An Road (West), Shanghai, 200040, China
Phone: +86-21-62489820
Fax: +86-21-62489821